10148 replies to this topic

[the L]

9:47 is interesting imho.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

You know, I'd be interested in knowing how contemporary native accounts of the arrival of the Spanish in South America, or the British/French in North America or the British in Australia described the Spanish/Ritish/French.
I know there was the description L used as part of his thought experiment dozens of pagesago, but was that either genuine or an isolated account? We've been told the various South American tribed thought the Spanish were gods, but is there ny firsthand evidence of that?

I ask because I'm wondering how precise the locals would be transcribing the account of visitors from other worlds - would they plump for "space gods" or would they say "space gods from Zeta Ridiculi"?

[Harte]

the L, on 14 December 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

But we can do thermoluminescence dating, which is as I understand that atomic level of stones changes when sun first time heat stone when have been cut from mountain or being shaped into final form. Question is why we dont do it on some archaeological sites and artifacts?

It's used whenever it can be used.

The type of dating you're talking about can tell when the last time was that the sun shone on an object, not how old it is, usually.

A similar form - the earliest form IIRC - of thermolumenescent dating can tell how long ago a clay object was fired, assuming it was fired.

Harte

[Harte]

zoser, on 15 December 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

The reed drill-tube used with wet sand abrasive soon softened and spread outward and inward, thus completely filling the originally hollow interior with softened stem material. Despite this alteration to the tube's configuration, it performed useful work upon the soft limestone, but performed poorly upon the hard limestone and the calcite. However, because the drill had assumed the shape of a solid stalk, instead of a tube, penetration into the soft limestone was reduced, even though the volumetric rate of drilling remained similar to that of the tube in use with dry sand. The use of the reed tubes upon the coarse-grained hard sandstone and granite, utilizing wet or dry sand abrasive, so badly damaged them that no useful cutting could be achieved .

So what can one conclude from this?  You decide.

How about we decide to conclude what the author of the text you quoted concluded?

Quote

copper drills wear out much more slowly than reed drills (compare Table 4.1 with Tables 4.2 and 4.3).

Source: your own reference.

Harte

Edited by Harte, 16 December 2012 - 01:31 AM.

[synchronomy]

synchronomy, on 15 December 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

I enjoy it too.  It one of the best going right now IMHO.
If fact I enjoy UM more than any other.
Sure beats the heck out of that ATS forum afaic.

Sure does. Here in UM, I can take a break from a thread, and come back in a week and pick up with the last post I read.
It's a pleasure to navigate...and although we joke about trolls here, they are few and far between in comparison.

[DONTEATUS]

THis is where the Beef Is !
Now Who`s serving the Drinks for the night?

[zoser]

Abramelin, on 15 December 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Zoser (or anyone supporting the AA story), you have an explanation for how they built that thing?

A block of stone weighing almost 300 tons... as a roof.

Immediately when I see this sort of thing I don't get the same sort of feeling of mystery.  The same precision isn't there for a start, and it doesn't compare in any way to the heights involved with say the GP.  

My guess is shear mass of man and horsepower; but it's a much smaller scale mystery.

No one is going to express a deep sense of awe at a one off construction.  The ancients were manipulating dozens of blocks like this at the same site, and probably much more accurately cut.

Edited by zoser, 16 December 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[zoser]

Harte, on 16 December 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

[/font][/color][/size]
How about we decide to conclude what the author of the text you quoted concluded?
[size=4][color=#000000][font=Verdana]
Source: your own reference.

Harte

All the same it wasn't exactly a convincing test was it?  Pretty much a failure as far as I can make out.

[TheMacGuffin]

Here's one thing I've seen for myself when I was in Bosnia, the pyramid that is 25-30,000 years old.  No civilization capable of building pyramids existed on earth at that time, at least as far as we know.  In reality, there is so much that we don't know, but at some point all these atypical anomalies we keep finding are going to add up to a typical something.

[zoser]

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Try here instead (page 113):
http://books.google....be drill&f=true

Those little numbers are footnotes in the complete text to the original reports whose absence has you so worried. Note too the reference to in situ sockets I omitted.

Seriously? Where are the all the advanced machines that are supposed to've been in use? No evidence exists of even the capacity to create one unlike copper and bronze, of which innumerable examples have been found. And then there's the traces of verdigris found in some of these holes. But more on that later.
A simple tube is not contructionally equivalent to an ultrasonic drill.  Attempting to infer that such a thing was beyond their abilities only serves to weaken your argument.

And there's where your drills went. And here's your sign.

Very convenient though I must say.  No drills remain because they were all ground into dust.  Classic.

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Many questions indeed. And these bring up questions of their own, Such as exactly how many holes have actually been found in granite specifically and to what depth? And so many variables. What difference would it make if bronze were used? What if the abrasives were adhered to the tube as in most such tools?

Puma Punku is one of the best examples as far as I can tell.  Hundreds of holes.  Many of them very small diameter but some very large.  Exact numbers unknown.

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

However, this continues to dance around the main point again that Stocks produced actual results, and in-arguably demonstrated the feasibility of the method.

The test was a failure.  The hole depth of 6 cm achieved proved nothing other than an acceptable copper loss.  I don't possibly see how you can claim this?

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

I conclude that all but the last sentence doesn't exactly help your case, and that for the last, the same arguements for copper apply.

I have seen reports of primitive living enthusiasts drilling holes in granite using cane so a question arises as to the efficiency of Stocks'  chosen technique.

But unless it can be properly supported it's just more archaeological speculation.  As vague as the AA hypothesis that you reject so vehemently.

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

See above, although it should be pointed out that they had access to several native species of bamboo, (from the same source as the timber that's a lot closer than claimed.) which the chinese have successfully used for drilling hard stones like jade for thousands of years, so they must know something Stocks doesn't.



Proof of concept trumps speculation every time.

This concept is proved?  Really?  How?  On this extremely weak evidence?

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

He has done no such thing, as to date, to my knowledge he has only examined one mark on one core (With string. How's that for, paltry analysis?) and did we not establish above that one example is insufficient evidence? Well, one of us did anyway.

You cannot offer this weak test as 'proof of concept'.  Anyone trying to simulate the same conditions would only run up against the same difficulties.  The case is proven.

The core Dunn analysed showed typical cutting marks seen in other samples.

Oniomancer, on 15 December 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Ditto. Only the names have changed, and it's not the innocent that are being protected.

The Truth? I think it's safe to say that you literally can't handle the truth.

If I can see evidence I will acknowledge it.  All I see is half baked ideas that have somehow become established historical fact with very little supporting basis.  This is assumption at best, cover up and denial at worst.

Edited by zoser, 16 December 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 16 December 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Here's one thing I've seen for myself when I was in Bosnia, the pyramid that is 25-30,000 years old.  No civilization capable of building pyramids existed on earth at that time, at least as far as we know.  In reality, there is so much that we don't know, but at some point all these atypical anomalies we keep finding are going to add up to a typical something.

Very nice MacG.  More heretical evidence that many archaeologists wish could be erased no doubt.

[zoser]

the L, on 15 December 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

I'll watch this later; looks very good.  Was the Puma deliberate or just a coincidence I wonder?

[Imaginarynumber1]

zoser, on 16 December 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Very nice MacG.  More heretical evidence that many archaeologists wish could be erased no doubt.

More poor science and misrepresentation that is destroying actual historic sites that should be eraser.

[the L]

Harte, on 16 December 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

The type of dating you're talking about can tell when the last time was that the sun shone on an object, not how old it is, usually.

Okay so for example they took samples from foundations in the case of Greek pyramid?

What do you say about OSL dating. This is from wiki:


In 1994, the principles behind Optical dating (and thermoluminescence dating) were extended to include surfaces last seen by the sun before buried, of carved rock types from ancient monuments and artifacts, made of granite, basalt and sandstone, and this has proved possible. The initiator of ancient buildings luminescence dating Prof. Ioannis Liritzis has shown this in several cases of various monuments.


Are you aware of any TL and OSL dating on Great Pyramid, Gobekli Tepe, Sphinx? We could easly took examples of granite inside pyramid. Or dark side . inner parts of blocks. Rightnow nothing falls on my mind how would they date Sphinx but Im sure there is a way. Maybe remove some bricks from repairing part then took samples. Or dating foundations from temples which we know that they built from stone around Sphinx.

Edited by the L, 16 December 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[the L]

TheMacGuffin, on 16 December 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Here's one thing I've seen for myself when I was in Bosnia, the pyramid that is 25-30,000 years old.  No civilization capable of building pyramids existed on earth at that time, at least as far as we know.  In reality, there is so much that we don't know, but at some point all these atypical anomalies we keep finding are going to add up to a typical something.

I have been in Bosnia countless time. Few time in Visoko where is so called pyramid. Just because Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia and Herzegovinia is near.
Osmanagich is charlatan. There is none evidence of pyramid there whatsoever. There is none artifact found. Tunnels in mountain are either natural due runing water or artifical due mining. Bosnia IS well known for different kinds of ores and mines. Its land of mines. From Gold mines, Oil fields, salt mines. Romans, Ottomans, Illyrians, Vinča, Austria Hungary, Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks were diging in Bosnia. And many others. Trust me on this. I would be very happy if we found pyramid in Bosnia but there is no such thing.
Osmanagich connected so called pyramid with city Daorson. Which is proven to be Illyrian megalithic site. By doing so now common people who have mind think that Daorson is hoax too. Now thats Osmanagich hands work. Also we found in Bosnia small granite balls. Granite do not show in nature in ball form. By connecting so called pyramid with granite balls he again made big mistake so now no one realy investigate those balls. Now thats only thing that Osmanagich achived. He created turmoil in research with invented informations about so called pyramids, granite balls and Illyrians sites. Furthermore this charlatan connected Bogomils statues with mysterious civilization. Bogomils were sect in Bosnia which were mostly Croats and Serbs. By the time Ottomans came in Bosnia there was 700 000 Chatolics/Croats, 30 000 Orthodox/Serbs, 20 000 Bogomils/Croats and Serbs. Bogomils are not mystery at all. Science now all about their Stećaks. Those are fine carved tomb stones. Bosnia is full of them. Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro also have them. Personally I adore Stećak tomb stones but they are from middle ages. Osmanagich simply doesnt understand concept of time. Everything he found in Bosnia is mysterious civlization origins. He ignores crucial historical facts.
Also Osmanagich connects so called pyramid with tilts, round iron rings, on top of mountains on which this mysterious civilization tied their ships  when sea was so high to cover all land except peaks of mounatins. Do I need to say more?

Edited by the L, 16 December 2012 - 11:06 AM.